B.

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 BRENNON B., CASE NO. 19-cv-02394-YGR

7 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

8 vs. IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

9 WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Re: Dkt. No. 23 10 Defendants. 11 12 On September 24, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss, 13 which was fully briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 28, 29.) As stated on the record, and confirmed herein, 14 having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, defendant’s 15 motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 16 First, with respect to defendants’ assertion that plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 (“Section 1983”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 18 1972 (“Title IX”) are untimely, the Court finds that the applicable statutes of limitations have been 19 and continue to be tolled in light of plaintiff’s incompetence. See Tzolov v. International Jet 20 …